Counterargument to "Get Good" When It Comes to Video Games & Difficulty

[Noiser]

On 1/24/2023 at 8:46 PM, hybridial said:

It's true, it's just at the consoles were still new, game design for home retail was in it's infancy, and so the lives system was conceived because it was *similar* to the arcades.

To say that developers only included lives, for decades, without any good reason is doubt they have any trace of inteligence. It's not reasonable at all, especially on games made exclusively for consoles. They made it because there's a design behind it. It's a penalty, to make you not want to die. You may not like it, but saying that the lives system only existed because of arcades is historically false.

Edited January 26, 2023 by Noiser

[Individualised]

3 minutes ago, Noiser said:

To say that developers only included lives for decades without any reason is doubt they have any trace of inteligence. It's not reasonable at all, especially on games made exclusively for consoles. They made it because there's a design behind it. It's a penalty, to make you not want to die. You may not like it, but saying that the lives system only existed because of arcades is historically false.

It's pretty well documented that early console games had lives systems simply to bring the arcade experience home which was a big part of early console marketing. But I do agree that there's a reason that developers kept it in games for so long instead of ditching it after the coin-op era.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Individualised

[Noiser]

39 minutes ago, Individualised said:

But I do agree that there's a reason that developers kept it in games for so long instead of ditching it after the coin-op era.

That's my point. It always had a purpose, otherwise it would be cutted off early on. The whole argument against this system seems like a myth that got viral on the internet (which is what internet always do, apparently lol)

Edited January 25, 2023 by Noiser

[BGreener]

23 minutes ago, hybridial said:

 

Even say, Blazing Chrome, Contra clone extraodinaire, saves your progress between levels. It does operate on continues and lives within levels, but even that game has no actual game over, which I define as a game ripping all progress from you, and it's one of the most stringent modern takes on a classic 8bit/16 bit series. 

 

Blazing Chrome's hardcore setting provides a standard "game over", doesn't it? It won't do something crazy like reset your unlocked characters, but when you're out of lives and continues on hardcore I could've sworn it was gg.

[Fluuschoen]

Didn't know this was a thing here.

The best counterargument is to actually get good tho. Otherwise, who cares what other random people say?

[bofu]

virgin gatekeeper tells his friend who's annoyed at a video game to "git gud lul"

gigachad gamerbro suggests that the game probably isn't going to be enjoyable for his friend and says that's okay, they can play something else

 

It doesn't matter how good or bad you are at a game. If you're not having fun with it, you don't need to force it. Some people enjoy severe difficulty. I can enjoy it at times. But sometimes, you want to play a game that lets you avoid frustration, especially if you've had a lot of frustrating stuff happen in real life. Sometimes, games are your one escape from frustration, and playing a frustrating game is even worse than not playing a game at all.

 

Don't listen to what a bunch of tryhards on the internet say. You do you.

[Arrowhead]

A game's difficulty is not really correlated to how 'good' or 'bad' a game is, IMO.

Look at early arcade games / Atari 2600. Are those games fun immediately? Sure, one might have a good time the first time they play it, but you want to know what's more fun?

 

Mastering a task.

And to master a task ... guess what? You have to get good at it.

 

I've had more enjoyment being 'good' at certain games than I do being 'bad' at certain games. Or course when some jerk says 'git gud' they aren't actually trying to help you improve, but maybe if people took that as a possible reason to self-improve rather than just a mean critique, they'd get better at the game - and thus potentially have more fun - everyone's different.
 

Sure, games w/ difficulty levels exist, (i'd say most of the games released today have them, even the damn Atari 2600 [1977] had difficulty switches) but for those that don't have difficulty levels - you're going to garner FAR more enjoyment from MASTERING said task than being dogshit at it, harsh but true.

Imagine if many good artists and musicians would all of a sudden decide that mediocre was 'good enough'? "Oh, I'm shit at guitar, but hey golly, I'm sure having fun! I bet people will really like to follow a dude that's terrible at guitar like me." or "Wow, I learned a single chord! That's good enough for this year." You can't tell me that a first-time surfer who can barely stand on their board is having as much fun as someone who is already proficient at that task - that just seems like nonsense (to me).

 

Imagine if your boss told you to improve at something, and you responded w/, "Nah, I'm actually okay working at this lower level for the rest of my employment." I'm sure that'd go over well. The attitude against difficult video games and the people who say 'git gud' just seems like people concerned about having to self-improve - which granted it's a video game, but still, why not try to be the best you can be at everything you attempt?

 

Yeah, yeah - video games aren't serious business, etc. etc... - I just really dislike when people are satisfied w/ 'good enough'. Because if you're satisfied w/ your entry level skill, what motivation do you have to ever improve? This applies to nearly all facets in life.

 

All of our Olympic records would be awful if everybody had this attitude...   Just my two cents, no need to behead me!   :)

 

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Arrowhead

[TheMagicMushroomMan]

The reason "get gud" annoys me is because it's an overused generic meme that boring people use because they aren't original gangsters. I get sick of seeing the same phrases repeated over and fucking over on the internet. Gaming forums are no better than political discussions when it comes to that shit. It's about as funny as going on r/doom just to be greeted by hundreds of fuck.wads telling you that you can't just shoot a BFG through Mars. No shit, Sherlock. If you don't have anything useful to say, and you can't even be bothered to come up with a somewhat original joke, fuck off and boil your urethra. Apparently people like to use the term "NPC" as an insult against anyone they disagree with, but to me, the "get gud" folks are the real NPC's. They have no unique dialogue of their own.

 

By the way, I'm a hardcore FromSoft fan. Those kinds of people suck, which is why I couldn't give a fuck less about the overall community. I just play the games, the only community interaction I partake in is watching informational videos by relatively normal people on YouTube.

[LexiMax]

This thread reminds me how great this video is about assist modes in games:

 

 

2 hours ago, Arrowhead said:

Yeah, yeah - video games aren't serious business, etc. etc... - I just really dislike when people are satisfied w/ 'good enough'. Because if you're satisfied w/ your entry level skill, what motivation do you have to ever improve? This applies to nearly all facets in life.

 

Games aren't a reflection of someone's work ethic.  It might reflect yours, but people engage with games in a variety of different ways for a variety of different reasons.

[dasho]

8 minutes ago, AlexMax said:

Games aren't a reflection of someone's work ethic.

 

Ok, but clearly it is for some people or else the speedrunning community (for instance) would probably never exist. I love how a lot of "every way to play is valid" posts try to act completely neutral until the one opinion they disagree with comes up.

[Arrowhead]

1 hour ago, AlexMax said:

Games aren't a reflection of someone's work ethic.

But yes it can be? Bit of a black and white statement here, IMO.

I personally believe that people who put LITTLE effort into things they do - whether that's a hobby, a skill, a job, etc., will reap LITTLE rewards...
 

I thought this was fairly well known - I don't understand how people can state that playing a game / doing something poorly, is just as good as playing a game / doing a task well. One is demonstrably better than the other - that's like saying a gun that misfires all the time is just as 'valid' as one that shoots perfectly each time. You see a painter painting a fence next door - he's terrible - smudges everywhere, you can see the wood through the paint in areas. You gonna hire him over a different painter that is proficient at what he does? Of course you wouldn't - 9/10 people would hire the guy doing better work. AGDQ just passed - you think they'd be able to gather as much money for charity if everyone was poor at the games? Of course not - they're going to pick people who are 'proficient'.

One is clearly better than the other. Only one of the two is rewarded in the real world, also. Like I said, video games aren't serious business - but if some want it to be, what the hell is wrong w/ that? I'm not gatekeeping or restricting somebody, either - it's just a known fact that 'better' is superior to 'worse'. Shouldn't be controversial.

 

If someone scores 30k in Pac-man, and someone scores 800k, which is the superior score? If you were to set a goal, what would you aim for? The terrible score? Or the good score? This aversion to putting effort into a hobby confuses me - and I'm not singling you out, AlexMax, I don't even know if you feel that way - but how is my opinion on how one could / should play video games any less valid than anybody else's?

I'm not saying treat gaming like a job - that'd take the fun out of it. I'm saying put in the same amount of effort, and focus improving over time. I really don't get the mindset of 'I'm bad at that, so I'll just stop playing right now - god forbid if I need to 'git gud' or improve.'

A person proficient at a task or an art will typically glean more enjoyment than a complete novice would with the same material.

Imagine if after publishing a first map - that your 'style' stayed the same the rest of your mapping career - I highly doubt those would end up being popular maps, compared to a mapper that is actively trying hard to improve - to git gud.

Don't get me wrong, the people online saying 'git gud' are typically jerks - but 'git gud' can translate pretty easily to 'improve' / 'get better'. It's up to the reader how they want to interpret said info - decrying someone for telling you to do better, even if they did so 'maliciously' is a bit silly to me. Once again, AlexMax, not singling you out - I just wanted to make my position clear.

 

Being satisfied w/ the bare basics, or being satisfied w/ having to expend the littlest effort possible might work for some people - as some people just want to relax - but I am not one of those people - and that doesn't make me any less valid than you, or anybody else, I think.

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Arrowhead

[Mr. Freeze]

If every way to play is valid, why can't every design philosophy be valid? What is it with videogaming and demanding everything fit every person's Fun Zone and time they're able to allot to playing it?

[Pechudin]

3 hours ago, Arrowhead said:

I'm not saying treat gaming like a job - that'd take the fun out of it. I'm saying put in the same amount of effort, and focus improving over time. I really don't get the mindset of 'I'm bad at that, so I'll just stop playing right now - god forbid if I need to 'git gud' or improve.'

 

It's all about motivation though. At job you have the motivation of roof over your head, food on the table etc. (not saying that's the only motivation - you could genuinely want to be better at your job if you like it). Some people just want to blow off some steam with gaming, and have no "goal" of getting better.

 

If/when that goal IS identified, then the motivation changes ...

[Professor Hastig]

3 hours ago, Mr. Freeze said:

If every way to play is valid, why can't every design philosophy be valid? What is it with videogaming and demanding everything fit every person's Fun Zone and time they're able to allot to playing it?

 

Absolutely nothing, of course - but for commercially produced games this cannot work. You want to make a profit off your game after all, and if you make something that only appeals to a small group of customers you either need to reduce your cost or devise some mechanism to find a broader audience.

 

That goes both ways, of course. If your game is too easy you will lose some of the expert games, but if you make it too hard you will lose the more casual crowd.

 

[Azuris]

9 hours ago, Individualised said:

It's pretty well documented that early console games had lives systems simply to bring the arcade experience home which was a big part of early console marketing. But I do agree that there's a reason that developers kept it in games for so long instead of ditching it after the coin-op era.

 

But you can clearly see the Difference between a Console Game and Arcade.

The Arcade Game throws a lot of Enemies at you, gives you less recovery Time after a Hit, makes your Attacks weaker and gives you a smaller range.

 

Lives are invented as a penalty, the System above are made to steal them from you in a quick Way and is what truly differs it.

 

Turtles in Time is here a good Example i personally know well (as it is one of the Games i most played in my Life)

They improved many small Things in the Console Port as stated above, Hit Range, Enemy Speed, Recovery Time.

When you know the Game well, you feel the small Changes instantly.

You can beat the Game on Hard without using a Continue after a while.

 

Also, it depends on the Game, Zelda a link to the path had no Lives, Contra III did.

Nowadays are more Games that are comparable to Zelda, so there is no need for Lives.

But sometimes they include a Hardcore Mode, only one Live for you ;)

 

[Azuris]

4 minutes ago, Professor Hastig said:

 

Absolutely nothing, of course - but for commercially produced games this cannot work. You want to make a profit off your game after all, and if you make something that only appeals to a small group of customers you either need to reduce your cost or devise some mechanism to find a broader audience.

 

That goes both ways, of course. If your game is too easy you will lose some of the expert games, but if you make it too hard you will lose the more casual crowd.

 

 

But don't forget, making Games for the wider Audience often does exclude a certain one.

 

So you can make a Game for them and have a secured Part of the Cake or even more, if others ignored it for too long, it gets even Clients that werent as into that.

 

Take the Souls Games, they got a Hit because at the Time nobody was making harder Games.

I would say there were harder Games in the 90s, but they got a Hit with it.

 

Afterwards many Souls Like Games appeared, the Part of the Cake they've got was smaller and smaller and smaller.

 

Another good Example would be Games as Monkey Island, there is an Audience for it.

Not one that will hit Numbers as Skyrim, but it is there and you can make a Living out of it.

[ZethXM]

if a dev wants to make effective use of difficulty in their work to serve some greater end, cool.  a lot of the time gitgud pretends to be about that when it's really just shut up and consume product then get excited for next product reddit bullshit.

[Professor Hastig]

8 minutes ago, Azuris said:

 

But don't forget, making Games for the wider Audience often does exclude a certain one.

 

 

That's where skill levels come in then and you can have your cake and eat it, too, if it is done right.

 

9 minutes ago, Azuris said:

 

Another good Example would be Games as Monkey Island, there is an Audience for it. 

Not one that will hit Numbers as Skyrim, but it is there and you can make a Living out of it.

 

And here's where budget considerations come in. Sure you can do games for a smaller audience - but since this inevitably means lower sales the budget needs to be lower as well. On the other hand, the more you focus on a very specific audience, the higher the risk to make a misstep because that audience will have some very specific demands.

 

[hybridial]

10 hours ago, BGrieber said:

Blazing Chrome's hardcore setting provides a standard "game over", doesn't it? It won't do something crazy like reset your unlocked characters, but when you're out of lives and continues on hardcore I could've sworn it was gg.

 

But you said it yourself, that's a setting, an option. It's not the only way to play, it's not even the default way to play. 

 

5 hours ago, Arrowhead said:

Don't get me wrong, the people online saying 'git gud' are typically jerks - but 'git gud' can translate pretty easily to 'improve' / 'get better'. It's up to the reader how they want to interpret said info - decrying someone for telling you to do better, even if they did so 'maliciously' is a bit silly to me.

 

Because their obnoxious, because they don't know you, because they want to enforce a value on you you don't share. And to be honest this is the only thing the OP really sought to talk about. To me it's not much different from the Keyboard and mouse crowd. After going through a lot of experiences with for health and enjoyment reasons of seeking and asking about support in older games, asking developers to include controller support in games in development, and believe me, I know where the practical limitations of controller support are, I've never been unrealistic about it. And yet... well I went past my limit with the KB&M elitists long ago and I don't believe they deserve to be acknowledged as human beings. They've invoked visceral feelings of psychopathy in me because constant, sociopathic repetition of such toxic behaviour will grind anyone down to that point. And yeah, I kinda realise that the topic is just about people being toxic and not about game design or how people play games. Those people do not give a shit about the person they are talking to actually getting better, that's not what motivates their behaviour. They wouldn't behave that way if it did. You are giving them way too much credit because as someone who's main hobby is writing, and I genuinely want to be good at it, what do you think is my response to anybody who's only input on my work is "this sucks, git gud." Yeah, it's not fucking very helpful. The OP is not talking about encouraging or productive behaviour. 

[Budoka]

1 hour ago, Professor Hastig said:

 

That's where skill levels come in then and you can have your cake and eat it, too, if it is done right.

I don't know about that. I'd say sometimes you can't, even when you can there's always a limit you're going to hit eventually. You'll spread yourself thin and go down trying to get every gamer alive to appreciate your game.

 

Also, a factor that has yet to be brought up in this is that often the level of challenge presented in a video game is not an element that operates in isolation, but rather interacts with the other components (soundtrack, visuals etc.) to generate a specific mood and atmosphere. To re-use the go to example, Dark Souls made easy would not feel like Dark Souls does. You wouldn't make the experience that fans are going through accessible to a wider audience by making the game cater more to lower skill players, because it wouldn't actually be the same experience anyway.

 

The same principle goes for the power fantasy feeling conveyed by, well, Doom Eternal. If the mechanics allowed just about anyone who tries playing the game to do well, the victory rush when one makes progress in the game would feel much more hollow than it does. Does that make it exclusionary on some level? Well yeah, but literally everything than humans could possibly interact with has some characteristic that's exclusionary. Reality itself always discriminates, in ways that we can't magically fix just because they happen to frustrate us on some level. 

 

Ultimately, not enjoying the way a video game is is fine, but we'd best not forget that a game is how it is because the people spend their time playing it do like it the way it is.

[Bauul]

One thing that's worth pointing out when it comes to "git gud" as it relates to Souls games is that the phrase originates as genuine advice.

 

When the early Souls games came out, many new players would take to various websites asking "what special item do I need to beat this boss?" Or "what combination of armor and weapons will make this easy?" Or "Is there a secret to stop this being challenging?" Etc. There was the assumption that the game was hard because they were missing something.

 

The novel thing about the Souls games at the time was that simply put, no they weren't. There was no hidden trick or special combination the player was missing. The only way to beat the game was, simply put, by getting better at it.

 

So rather than being a dismissive meme or troll, it was the summation of the best advice anyone could really give you about playing a Souls game: if you want to beat it, you just have to learn how to play it well. 

 

I find it a shame that this perspective on the origins of the phrase has been somewhat overlooked.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Bauul

[hybridial]

4 minutes ago, Budoka said:

To re-use the go to example, Dark Souls made easy would not feel like Dark Souls does. You wouldn't make the experience that fans are going through accessible to a wider audience by making the game cater more to lower skill players, because it wouldn't actually be the same experience anyway.

 

But Dark Souls is easy a lot of the time. Least I thought so. Honestly I don't think the difficulty is what you're referring to but Dark Souls intentional lack of transparency; and the gameplay just being what it is, requiring patience, observation and rote repetition of effective strategies.

 

And that is just not my idea of fun; or challenge frankly, but obviously it seems to be a lot of people's, because they seem to equate this with the game being a challenge, and that is part of its mystique. But does this lead to the fanbase being toxic? I think as I said before, the marketing didn't really help with that; somewhat encouraging a sense of vanity around beating the game that isn't particularly warranted or constructive. 

[Professor Hastig]

3 minutes ago, Budoka said:

Also, a factor that has yet to be brought up in this is that often the level of challenge presented in a video game is not an element that operates in isolation, but rather interacts with the other components (soundtrack, visuals etc.) to generate a specific mood and atmosphere. To re-use the go to example, Dark Souls made easy would not feel like Dark Souls does. You wouldn't make the experience that fans are going through accessible to a wider audience by making the game cater more to lower skill players, because it wouldn't actually be the same experience anyway.

 

That's only because you approach this from the wrong side. If you get too invested in the intricacies of how the game works you won't see the available options.

Who cares about "the experience" anyway? Most gamers want to have fun, but when I read such stuff I get the feeling that sometimes gaming is being perceived as serious business where every minute detail needs to be perfectly arranged to provide the 'real' experience.

 

6 minutes ago, Budoka said:

Ultimately, not enjoying the way a video game is is fine, but we'd best not forget that a game is how it is because the people spend their time playing it do like it the way it is.

 

Do they? How does game modding come in here? With this kind of reasoning, each weapon mod would be bad because it dilutes 'the experience' and no longer provides what the makers 'intended'.

Somehow this reminds me of modders asking questions like "how can I disable saving/cheating/automap?", i.e. they get far too invested in controlling the player instead of making their game fun!

 

 

[Budoka]

29 minutes ago, Professor Hastig said:

but when I read such stuff I get the feeling that sometimes gaming is being perceived as serious business where every minute detail needs to be perfectly arranged to provide the 'real' experience.

Because it does. Video Games are works of art like every other medium, regardless of the much higher level of interactivity they provide. And since you brought it up, I do in fact effectively dislike every weapon mod and gameplay mod released for Doom II, and literally never apply them when I launch the game. The very reason I play classic Doom instead of more recent FPS games is precisely that its base mechanics stand the test of time as well as they do. The only exception is partial/total conversion mapsets where the mechanics are modified towards a specific level design purpose, and frankly in practice even the majority of those don't quite meet my expected standards of quality. For what it's worth, the Doomtubers who stand out from the crowd with their content tend to think the same way(decino, Coincident, Peter, David Assad, Zero Master...)

 

By the way, I think the baseless assumption that people who enjoy more challenging games than you do must necessarily be modding them in order to enjoy them is, itself, far more malicious than the supposedly malicious intent which usually gets attributed to hardcore gamers in this discourse.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Budoka

[Azuris]

3 hours ago, Professor Hastig said:

And here's where budget considerations come in. Sure you can do games for a smaller audience - but since this inevitably means lower sales the budget needs to be lower as well. On the other hand, the more you focus on a very specific audience, the higher the risk to make a misstep because that audience will have some very specific demands.

 

 

Yeah, but i think it is totally ok.

Media is fosuced much on those heavily founded AAA Titles, but i would say that often AA Titles are as fun or even more, because they have to focus on their strength.

 

And also, often you don't need a Game made in ultra realistic Unreal Engine Assets, it is ok to have a different Style that isn't as demanding and costs less.

 

Often more Money also doesn't mean better Titles (program and style wise), as some Companies tend to throw People on Problems instead of optimizing Stuff.

I would say Doom Eternal was very nice optimized in that regard, the Loading Times are crazy fast compared to some UE Titles that look worse and keep my GPU blasting.

 

Aaalso (so many alsos haha)

KI generated Stuff and better Tools will make it easier in the Future to make Game Worlds with less People and less Budged.

 

AAA Titles will step keep Technology evolving and smaller Genres/Titles will benefit.

 

[Arrowhead]

1 hour ago, hybridial said:

They've invoked visceral feelings of psychopathy in me because constant, sociopathic repetition of such toxic behaviour will grind anyone down to that point. And yeah, I kinda realise that the topic is just about people being toxic and not about game design or how people play games. Those people do not give a shit about the person they are talking to actually getting better, that's not what motivates their behaviour. They wouldn't behave that way if it did. You are giving them way too much credit because as someone who's main hobby is writing, and I genuinely want to be good at it, what do you think is my response to anybody who's only input on my work is "this sucks, git gud." Yeah, it's not fucking very helpful. The OP is not talking about encouraging or productive behaviour. 

Yeah, thanks, I know the people saying 'git gud' aren't genuinely trying to help me - I get that - I'm not a complete gullible fool, but it's up to you how you interpret negative criticism / negative opinions - you don't have to let them smack you around until you feel "...visceral feelings of psychopathy..."

You don't think that's maybe a little much? A little over-the-top? We're talking about a difficulties in video games, and you're talking about visceral psycopathy in relation to elitist mouse users. Once again, you don't think that's a little much?

"The OP is not talking about encouraging or productive behaviour. "

 

You don't think I know this? Once again, it is you that decides whether something is encouraging or not. Negative criticism or being told to 'git gud' can only bother you if you allow it to - you can turn that negative energy into something positive if you have the correct mindset. For the record, I'm not upset at anyone - you're allowed your opinion of course.
 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Arrowhead

[Maribo]

1 hour ago, Bauul said:

One thing that's worth pointing out when it comes to "git gud" as it relates to Souls games is that the phrase originates as genuine advice.

Thank you for bringing this up, I was going to post it myself if we somehow reached page 3 without anyone else remembering it.

[Professor Hastig]

2 minutes ago, Arrowhead said:

You don't think I know this? Once again, it is you that decides whether something is encouraging or not. Negative criticism or being told to 'git gud' can only bother you if you allow it to - you can turn that negative energy into something positive if you have the correct mindset. For the record, I'm not upset at anyone - you're allowed your opinion of course.

 

 

If in most cases this would just drive off these people to which the response comes across as condescending. It is absolutely pointless to reason about this - the majority of people will not swallow it. They will just take a hike and never come back.
 

[LexiMax]

12 hours ago, Arrowhead said:

But yes it can be?

It could.

 

Or somebody could be using games as a low stakes escape and relaxation time away from their obligations that they excel at, so it's not representative.

 

Or somebody could be so obsessed with a game that they shirk their real life responsibilities, turning it into something that's the opposite of representative.

 

If you genuinely do not understand why other people engage with games differently than you, that sounds like something you should strive to improve at - understanding others feelings.  Think of it as something to “git good” at.  😉

Edited January 25, 2023 by AlexMax

[Bucket]

My take: if extreme difficulty is a defining feature then it'll be judged by the same kind of quality standards as the art or writing would be. This is no different than judging simulators on their physics or sandbox games on how fun it is to ignore the story.

 

So we have Soulslike games now, which are kind of like someone played PS2 era third-person slashers and said to themselves, "You know what would make this game better? If my character moved like molasses and couldn't defend themselves."